No. 23-2357 ___________________________

Erin Bulfin

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Becky Rainwater; Renita Hawkins; Maryanne Willis; Vanessa Duris; Philip Wagenknecht, in their individual capacities; St. Louis County

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________

Submitted: February 14, 2024 Filed: June 17, 2024 ____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON,1 and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ LOKEN, Circuit Judge.

Erin Bulfin brought this action asserting municipal liability claims against St. Louis County, and Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure and numerous state law

1 Judge Colloton became chief judge of the circuit on March 11, 2024. See 28 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1). claims against employees and a contract veterinarian of St. Louis County Animal Care & Control (“ACC”), after Bulfin’s pet dog, Daisy, was transferred to the custody of the County Department of Public Health and euthanized at ACC. Ruling on cross- motions for summary judgment, the district court2 granted summary judgment to the individual Defendants, concluding Bulfin’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated because Defendants reasonably relied on the apparent consent of Bulfin’s husband, Edward Nea, to euthanize Daisy, and alternatively that these Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the alleged Fourth Amendment right was not clearly established. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the County on Bulfin’s federal municipal liability claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Bulfin’s state law claims. Bulfin appeals the dismissal of her federal § 1983 claims. “We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Bloodworth v. Kansas City Bd. of Police Comm’rs, 89 F.4th 614, 619 (8th Cir. 2023). Concluding the district court committed no error, we affirm.

I. Background

Bulfin and Nea were married when she purchased Daisy in March 2014, with Nea present, and paid for the dog from a joint bank account. Daisy lived with Bulfin, Nea, and their children as a pet. On December 26, 2019, Daisy bit their daughter in the face, requiring hospitalization, stitches, and treatment. The next morning, after the daughter’s release from the hospital, Bulfin called her veterinarian’s office, reported the bite incident, and was told to contact ACC. Bulfin called ACC, reported that Daisy had bitten her daughter, and discussed her options with Defendant Rebecca Rainwater. While the details of the conversation are disputed -- whether it was limited to the need to quarantine Daisy for ten days under a local ordinance, or

2 The Honorable John M. Bodenhausen, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

-2- included Bulfin inquiring about having Daisy euthanized at ACC -- it is undisputed that at the end of the conversation Bulfin told Rainwater that her husband would bring Daisy to ACC that day.

Nea brought Daisy to ACC that afternoon. He told Defendant Renita Hawkins, who was working the animal intake desk, that Daisy had bitten his daughter the night before and that his wife had called ACC earlier. The conversations during Nea’s visit are disputed. Hawkins testified, with some corroboration from others, that Nea insisted Daisy be euthanized that day because he did n